\subsection{Instance Matching Results} 
To produce final instance matches for the OAEI matching tasks, we refined the candidates produced by Sonda using SERIMI \footnote{The SERIMI' version considered on this experiment is the one published at \cite{serimi}} (Sonda+SERIMI). 
%That is, SERIMI is used not only to refined the candidate, not only to generate class components. 
Table 2 shows the OAEI 2010 results for Sonda+SERIMI, SERIMI (without Sonda) and the other systems, RIMON \cite{DBLP:conf/semweb/WangZHZLQT10} and ObjectCoref \cite{DBLP:conf/semweb/HuCCQ10}. When considering only datasets supported by ObjectCoref, we can see that ObjectCoref was second best (see Average-ObjectCoref), while over the datasets used by Rimon, SERIMI was second best (see Average-Rimon). Sonda+SERIMI was best over all three combinations of datasets. As an average, Sonda+SERIMI resulted in 13\% average improvement over SERIMI. Thus, these results suggest that Sonda was effective in preserving correct matches and reducing ambiguities (incorrect matches). This facilitates the instance matching task, enabling SERIMI to produce higher quality results. 


%improvement can be attributed to the RR produced by Sonda, which was more effective than the mechanism implement in SERIMI to select the candidates. 
%Regarding the OAEI 2011, Sonda+SERIMI did not improve the results of SERIMI, both were 0.85 F1, in average. The best system in this year achieved 0.90 F1 (mainly, due to hard coded rules to explore geo similarity). 
 
%\begin{table*} []
%\centering
%\scriptsize\tt
%\caption{Sonda+SERIMI F1-measure (between precision and recall) compared to other tools that participate on the OAEI 2011 benchmark.} 
%\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
%\hline
%Dataset  &  Sonda+SERIMI    & KnoFuss+GA & AggreementMaker & SERIMI & Zhishi.links \\ \hline
%DBPedia - Geo. & 0.68   & 0.89 & 0.69 & 0.68 & \textbf{0.92} \\ \hline
%DBPedia - Corp. & 0.88   &\textbf{ 0.92} & 0.74 & 0.88 & 0.91 \\ \hline
%Freebase - Geo. & 0.89   & \textbf{0.93} & 0.85 & 0.91 & 0.88 \\ \hline
%Freebase - Corp. & 0.90   & \textbf{0.92} & 0.80 & 0.91 & 0.87 \\ \hline
%Freebase - People & 0.95   & 0.95 & \textbf{0.96} & 0.92 & 0.93 \\ \hline
%Geonames & 0.72   & 0.90 & 0.85 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.91} \\ \hline
%Average & 0.85 & 	\textbf{0.92} &	0.82 &	0.85	 & 0.90 \\ \hline											 
%\end{tabular}  
%\end{table*} 
 
 

\begin{table} 
\centering

\caption{Sonda+SERIMI compared to other OAEI 2010 published results.} 
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Task &  Sonda+SERIMI &  SERIMI & ObjectCoref & Rimon  \\ \hline
Sider-Dailymed & 0.63    & \textbf{0.66} & - & 0.62  \\ \hline
Sider-Diseasome & \textbf{0.91}    & 0.87 & - & 0.45 \\ \hline
Sider-Drugbank & 0.95    & \textbf{0.97} & - & 0.50  \\ \hline
Sider-TCM & \textbf{0.99}   & 0.97 & - & 0.79  \\ \hline
Dailymed-Sider & \textbf{1.0}    & 0.67 & 0.70 & 0.62  \\ \hline
Drugbank-Sider & \textbf{1.0 }  & 0.48 & 0.46 & -  \\ \hline
Diseasome-Sider & \textbf{0.97}   & 0.87 & 0.74 & -  \\ \hline
Person11-Person12 & 0.97    & \textbf{1.00} & 0.99 & \textbf{1.00} \\ \hline
Person21-Person22 & 0.43   & 0.46 & 0.95 & \textbf{0.97} \\ \hline
Restaurant1-Rest.2 &\textbf{ 0.98}    & 0.77 & 0.88  & 0.81 \\ \hline
Average-All &  		\textbf{0.88} (+13\%)	 & 0.77 & - & - 						 	\\ \hline								 
Average-ObjectCoref &  	\textbf{0.89} (+12\%)  	&0.71&	0.79&- \\ \hline
Average-Rimon &\textbf{0.86} (+9\%)	 &0.80	&	-&0.71 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
 